Abstract

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id2061926. ; Size: 249K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

Hearing on Stolen or Counterfeit Goods Legislation

On March 28, 2012, Professor Dervan was called to testify before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security (Judiciary Committee, U.S. House of Representatives) and offer his thoughts regarding proposed counterfeit goods legislation (The Safe Doses Act (H.R. 4223) and the Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act of 2011 (H.R. 3668)). In his prepared statement, Professor Dervan examines the phenomenon of overcriminalization, the collapse of mens rea, the true impact of increased statutory maximums, plea bargaining, and the continued deterioration of our constitutionally protected right to trial by jury. His closing remarks to the Committee offer a poignant critique of modern-day criminal legislative practices and challenges us to consider this question: “As overcriminalization continues to create the incentives that make plea bargaining so prevalent and powerful, we must ask ourselves as a country what constitutional price is being paid when, even though we act with good and noble intentions, we create yet another law or increase yet another statutory maximum where is it not absolutely necessity to achieve our goals.”